The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-03-25
cause why the said trial should not be


held
This Court issued writ on the 9Th OF
March, commanding the said respond
ent to hear the case without delay or
show cause why he should not within
ten days after the service OF the writ
upon him.
On the 21st of March an answer came
from respondent, admitting that he
issued a summons on the 10th of Febru-
airy, 1887, against w. H. Purvis on the
said Nakamura Munataro to cancel the
labor contract between them, and the
respondent sat on the 14th of February
as Deputy District Justice of Hamakua
to hear the case The petitioner claimed
that he was a servant bound to serve w.
III Purvis, the defendant, under labor
contract, and alleged that the contract
was broken by defendant and the law
OF masters and servants violated, and
asked the Court to annul the contract
and to award damages and costs to
plaintiff, in accordance with section
,423 of the Civil Code.
Counsel for the defendant, J. K. Kau-
namano and u. Paakiki, urged that the
,423d section of the Civil Code was re-
pealed by an Act of the Legislature APP
proved on the 18th of July, 1874; also,
that this is civil case, and the amount
of damages is not laid in the complaint;
also, that Nakamura MunatarO mad
brought suit against his master, w. Fl.
Purvis, before J. P. Miau, District JUS
tice of Hamakua, to cancel the contract,
on the ground that his master owed
him, but the District Justice had not de-
cided the case.
The answer further says that respond
ent decided not to hear the case because
he was of opinion that as the Act of
July Is, 1874, repealed call laws and
parts of laws consistent Herewith" it
repealed section ,423 of the Civil Code,
and the Court has now no Jurisdiction
to try cases for infringement of contracts
between masters and servants. Also,
that as the District Justice had enter
tanned the case of the plaintiff against
defendant and decided against him in
part and held the case as regards the
suit $19 wages, the respondent decided
the case in favor of the defendant and
ordered him to pay costs of So so.
The petitioner demurS to the answer,
and AYERS that the Act of 1874, referred
to in the answer, only regulates the
general jurisdiction of District Justices
with regard to civil cases founded on
pecuniary demands, and has nothing to
do with the relations between masters
and servants, and over which the Dis
trict Justices have by law jurisdiction
conferred upon them. Also, that a
pending suit for wages between the
same parties in the same Court is no bar
to an action to cancel the contract.
By the. Court-It is to be regretted
that the respondent has not appeared by
counsel or in person, but relies upon his
answer. l find from the statement of
petitioners counsel that J. 2. Miau, the
District Justice, declined to allow the
uniting OF the two actions, one for wages
and one to cancel the contract, and that
is all that was done by him, but that the
Deputy Justice, A W. Haalilio, who
acted in the absence of Miau, heard the
points of defendant Purvis' counsel,
and merely declined to try the case. 1t
is very strange that any misapprehen-
sion should exist in the mind OF the
Deputy District Justice in regard to his
Jurisdiction. By section 1 ,423 of the
Civil Code jurisdiction is conferred upon
Police and District Justices, whenever a
master shall be found guilty of any
cruelty, misusage or violation OF the
terms of the contract towards any person
bound to service, ETC., to examine into,
hear and determine the complaint, ETC.,
and if the complaint is sustained, to dis
charge the laborer from all obligations
of service, and he has power to punish
the master by fine, etc.
Section 915 Of the Civil Code gives
jurisdiction to District Justices to hear
and determine all civil cases whenever
the amount in controversy or the amount
of plaintiffs demand does not exceed
one hundred dollars, etc. This was
amended by the Act of July 13, 1874,
which merely increased the limit of juris-
diction to $500 This law, which has
proved stumbling block to the respond
ent, does not conflict with the law con-
ferring special jurisdiction ON District
Justices to try the cases of complaints
against employers of labor on the part of
their bound servants. The two laws are
upon different subjects. The two juris-
dictiens exist concurrently.
can hardly conceive how any lawyer
could make such point or any Justice
entertain such view of so plain law.
AS regards the other point, that civil
suit for wages is still pending between
the same parties, this is no bar to the
suit to cancel the contract. Arrears OF
wages might be recovered even after a
labor contract was annulled.
I deem the cause shown to be INSULT
cient, and peremptory mandate may